Interpretation

[Fluffy]

N/S Vulnerable

 

♠A52

♥9752

♦5

♣AKQJ10

 

W - N - E - S

1NT*-ps-2♣-X

ps-2♦-ps-??

 

1NT*= 10-12 at these colors

 

 

Me and dad had a big missunderstanding on this hand.

 

What is partner doing here?

[Finch]

What did the double mean?

 

If double showed a hand that would have doubled 1NT (very common method against weak NTs) then 2D shows a weak hand with long diamonds and short clubs.

 

If double showed clubs, then 2D shows a constructive hand with diamonds and clubs.

[peachy]

If the Dbl is for "lead clubs" then with diamonds and clubs, I would pass the X if I don't have gameforcing values and bid 2D if I intend to bid game somewhere. If the Dbl is the same as it would be in direct seat (Dbl of a weak NT), then 2D is a weak hand with diamonds. Maybe there are other meanings existing for the Dbl. I suspect your trouble started from not having agreed what the Dbl is. Many play that Dbl of an artificial bid (like Stayman) shows the suit.

[Finch]

Yes, I suppose I should amend my answer because it also depends on what LHO's pass of 2Cx meant. If our double showed clubs, and the pass also showed clubs, then partner is running (in an anti-partnership way) from 2Cx looking at some 3=4=6=0 2-count or something.

 

If pass was neutral (expecting responder to bid something) then 2D was constructive. We can agree to disagree on how forcing it is.

[Gerben42]

Partner need not have very short ♣ to not pass 2♣ after I doubled showing a hand that would Dbl 1NT. To me, partner is running because he doesn't have much. However, it's both possible that 2♦ is our best spot as it is an undoubled spot (partner has 6♦) or that we have a different fit. Since partner probably not bid 2♦ here without 5 of them and because no ♣ fit probably exists, I would pass (not particularly happy but can't have it all).

 

This all is assuming pass suggested something in ♣. If partner could have "safely" passed 2♣X with nothing, he now bids constructively and I must bid 3♣ now.

[Fluffy]

Me and dad agreed crearly that double of 2 clubs showed clubs, and a constrctive hand at least, not just lead directing.

 

Also 2♣ was staynman althou they had a 2♦ strong stayman avaible.

[Codo]

Pd has many possibilities to run from 2 Club doubled to Diamond:

Now with 2 or 3 Diamond, or with 3 Diamond later:

 

So

(1NT) pass (2♣) X

(pass) 2♦

sound like the weakest option to me, because he is able to introduce his suit at the lowest possible level and shows that he is not interessted in playing 2 Club X even opposite a good hand with clubs.

 

And it sounds like an one suiter to me. Else he could have choosen to bid X or 2 NT as a take out after their suit bid.

 

I had passed and claimed that with an invitational hand and long diamonds he could have bid 3 Diamonds.

[MFA]

IMO is 2♣-X to show clubs unplayable after a 10-12NT. It should show about the same as a penalty double of the 10-12NT.

 

A 10-12NT is war. If we don't fight back, we'll get killed because of our reduced bidding precision. There will be tons of games to bid and tons of various awkward strong hands. If we use our most precious weapon (the double) to show the least valuable feature (a club suit), we have surely lost the first battle. Catching up later after having to pass 2♣ with just about any strong hand is not going to be easy.

 

Given that X showed clubs and a decent hand, further bidding should be constructive and oriented towards finding a possible game, not a runout (would pass). 2♦ is therefore a constructive, natural move. Having shown my clubs already, I would now bid 2♥ and pass any simple, NF reply from partner.

[Apollo81]

Usually when my opponents have this auction, the bidder is confused about the double and thought it was for takeout.

 

I would just bid 3♣ and try to play in my best suit. If partner keeps bidding, maybe we'll make 3NT.